碇 シンジン

Yeah I agree the issue arises when people stop using Google like a tool in order to find answers and use it straight for the answers without even thinking in the process. Just like when writing an answer to some question you dont learn anything if you just copypaste it in, you learn much more if you manually type the stuff in even if both would result the exact same text. Focusing on something and thinking/doing it yourself are good ways to learn when compared to copypasting, and stuff like that. I wouldnt say that the technology itself is bad thing though but it gives rise to this new issue where people dont really think for themselves and just get the answers to everything straight from google, but on the other hand it can be really valuable tool for furthering your understanding and gaining new information if you actually put your mind into it.

So it kinda boils down to what we consider being smart is. Young people are smart as to look up information on how to make cookies grandma has instead learnt the recipe as they didn't have anything to look it up from in a regular basis back then. These days you don't really need to learn a recipe if you can look it up somewhere and it is a one off thing you are making. I think being smart can be seen as being able to solve problems. However question arises that is it your own smartness that you use Google to search for answers to the problem? I don't know but as far as I'm concerned even with Google some problems are not really easy to solve especially the ones that involve very specific situation that isn't very common. Common problems like how to make cookies are pretty easy to find and won't require much gymnastics unless you ramp up the difficulty.

What? If you think about it logically that doesn't make any sense, as the baseline is that every new generation has collectively more information available to them from the beginning than the previous one. Thus more time to get used to it and learn stuff. However more information doesn't always equal smarter though it provides a better environment for becoming smarter. So if you take out all the other factors it is more likely that the younger generations will be able to gain more knowledge than the older generations. Just because they have better starting point for the longer run.

Finally some lootboxes around here, been waiting for that 5☆☆☆☆☆ LEGENDARY SR☆ LIMITED EDITION post skin.

Because the society has built this image that having a family and kids is what you are 'supposed' to have, this image is built around the premise of the human races survival. I bet that there would be much less kids around if humanity's existence didn't depend on people having kids. Another factor is that people want to have meaning in their lives it's like a computer game where the level let's you do certain things but doesn't really tell you specifically what you need to do. People want something to hold on to so they can hide their uncertainty and what it better than acting knowitall to some clueless kid that is dependent on you. People want to run away since they don't understand what is going on so they make up their own rules and act like they knew what they were supposed to do from the beginning. Another thing is that people just lose control. So people act by their nature and have sex because that is what nature compels us to do if we let ourselves act like wild animals.

Things that you have not grown used to or familiar with are harder to get into as you grown older. As you have more history without them as with them. So using them feels foreign and out of place. It requires more effort to get used to it. Another reason is that if you don't understand something it can be harder to approach it from a neutral perspective especially if you have experiences from a time where things were different. Change is not always easy to come in terms with. Modern age kids got used to these things in their childhood - the most impressionable age where it is significantly more easy and natural to process and gain new information. I believe those are some of the main reasons behind the divide.

If you are looking at a word comic it means comedy etc. which in turn means funny etc. However the same word is these days used for a medium of illustrated stories or fiction. I believe this is due the fact that the first comic strips were intended to be funny short picture stories on a side of the newspaper etc. Which people then referred by that name which in turn gave birth to it's new meaning. However in some other languages the word for comics doesn't really hold any meaning for comedic purpose at all.

I'm not 100% on the legal matters this is more of my opinion/view on the subject. 9The lines of what counts as a intellectual property right violation when it comes to visual art can be bit tricky I think since lot of people don't really understand the topic at all. There are couple ways on how you can approach the situation. First is that if you use a online service to share your art in and on that service there is not a disclaimer on the page on which the art is displayed about the rights of usage of the piece it becomes increasingly more unclear on what the implications of the usage of the piece are. Some people use this as their advantage since lot of people don't know what to do when such rights are violated and where to draw the line. Things become increasingly more clear if the piece in question is used directly or indirectly associated with financial gain, such as advertisements etc. If there is no commercial usage it can always be argued that the usage is fair use unless it was directly stated that such usage is not fair. Or if the piece in question is a product behind a paywall etc. However I think the best way to combat against stuff like this if you are paranoid is what I've seen some people do which is if you want to share the art publicly share a crap low res version or insane watermarked product or some other way crippled product.